-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Brodders17 said:
Never said that but isn't the idea of such things as Kyoto, for example, to try and get a worldwide conglomerate on fighting global warming?
If you can't get the developing nations / big polluters on board, then the war is lost before it has begun.
KnightersRevenge said:
Ah, the good old Greenies "per capita emissions" chestnut :
Per capita emissions means diddly-squat in this argument as its total emissions that are supposedly destroying the planet.
One guy on an island with a big bonfire would probably be the biggest emitter per capita going around but putting out his bonfire would make no difference to the global climate one iota.
KnightersRevenge said:
So why will they upgrade newer technologies, infrastructure, and machinery which they will need to sell (to developing nations already churning out the emissions) so they can invest in 'clean energy' models?
It will cost an abosolute fortune.
They'll just bugger off and take their equipment with them.
KnightersRevenge said:
Progressive republic??
Usually the most stable governments are monarchal ones actually, but I give you 10/10 for this overly optimistic post.
I think you may have been given the ALPs magic red injection and its affects are starting to kick in :hihi
If you are serious about cutting down on man-made pollutants, then you identify the root cause, analyse where the issues lay, and tackle them as a global group.
That may mean that the new technologies are co-owned by many nations and rolled out through the developing nations first and down from there.
Nations like Australia, who are very small in the global scheme of things, cobbling together some carbon tax or scheme or whatever fancy name you want to call it, is not solving anything and will weaken the economy over time that we won't have the people with the knowledge here anymore to lead the way on 'clean energy', businesses will move offshore or close altogether, and the country simply won't have the money to introduce and roll out here any new technologies developed anyway!
But I'm a commie aren't I?willo said:
[youtube=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDXPNtaD6ZY[/youtube]
Liverpool said:Progressive republic??
Usually the most stable governments are monarchal ones actually, but I give you 10/10 for this overly optimistic post.
I think you may have been given the ALPs magic red injection and its affects are starting to kick in :hihi
Hey a bloke can dream can't he?
If you are practical you know that isn't possible. You change the things you can change. Yes China is building coal fired power plants but it is also investing more than any other country in renewables also. They are showing their willingness but they understand the practicalities of needing to bring power and heat and amenities to a billion people who had none less than a decade ago. They understand that the engine of their economy is a hungry beast, ours is less so. Our infrastructure and our population can handle the change now.
This is a fundamental difference of opinion. I don't accept that the economy will weaken in the pessimistic way you describe. I see it as an opportunity. I don't believe that companies will jump ship. Some might, but it will not grind Australia to a halt. What a bitter and low opinion you must have of your fellow Australians. I think they will adapt and flourish in ways not yet thought of. They will not go quietly in to that good night Sir Livers. They will prove you wrong and become a beacon of solar and wind powered and geothermal light for the new Asia with Australia at it's heart. 8-
Liverpool said:
This is flawed logic in my brain. Similar logic to a pedophile saying 'ill stop rooting little kids when the royal commission throws the book at the catholic church'.
Liverpool said:
Flawed logic. The correct analogy would be, its ok for people to have a bonfire ahead of the front on black saturday, which i think most would find unacceptable
Liverpool said:
Why bother summarising 5 years of nonsense? Hard fact to face livsy, but you are not as smart, or as accomplished in reductionist scientific study, as 1000 of the most qualified scientists on the planet.
I'll summarize your next 5 years posts to save you the trouble
http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/
KnightersRevenge said:
I agree, its an opportunity...but the problem you have is, if global warming is created by man-made emissions, then Australia will need the support of the global community.
If you do not have the developing nations on board and under the same restrictions (whether it be environmental regulations, carbon taxes/schemes, or advances in technology) as Australia, then we will be doomed for failure before we begin as its the developing nations plus the USA/EU who pump out nearly 75% of the world's emissions.
If these countries decide not to be part of this so-called 'solution', then where does that leave Australia?
Remembering that Russia, Japan, and the USA refused to sign the Kyoto protocol....who are we going to flog our whizz-bang wind-powered technology to then so we can save the world??
Even the Kyoto protocol does not make China (the world largest emitter at 23%) make targeted emission cuts.
tigergollywog said:
Nothing flawed about it.
You could shut Australia down tomorrow and leave it to the Aborigines and it would make no difference whatsoever to global warming.
We are a small fish in a big ocean when it comes to total carbon emissions.
Liverpool said:
I don't have a problem, the worst thing that happens is that Australia gets left with is an energy sector that can continue and grow without coal and the expense that comes with it. Using wind and solar and geothermal which are all free. Why would you want to resist moving to endless sources of free energy and imagine that that somehow hurts our economy in the long run? Unless you happen to own a coal mine?
Doomed? How? We are all doomed, well our descendants are, if your scenario plays out because eventually our atmosphere will turn toxic at a pace that outstrips our ability to evolve to cope with it and like 99% of all the creatures that have ever lived on this planet we too will be a mark in history. But Australia is not doomed. The worst outcome is that we generate our energy from free almost inexhaustible sources and our industries are more productive.
I didn't mention the emissions of other countries, or Kyoto. Did you read that China already spends more than us on renewable energy sources and green building technology. Look at the pace of growth in China, they will overtake everyone on this if and when the choose to like we were standing still. They will be interested and will use our resources to help them if we set ourselves up for that role. Or we could let the market decide and be left behind as a relic. See below for a quote and link from Forbes:
China was responsible for almost one-fifth of total global investment, spending $52 billion on renewable energy last year. The United States was close behind with investments of $51 billion, as developers sought to benefit from government incentive programs before they expired. Germany, Italy and India rounded out the list of the top five countries.
According to China’s 12th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (2011-2015), the country will spend $473.1 billion on clean energy investments over the next five years. China’s goal is to have 20 percent of its total energy demand sourced from renewable energy by 2020."
KnightersRevenge said:
No....if I am to believe that man-made emissions are the culprit for global warming and statistics would say we play a negligible part at best regarding this...then the worst outcome would be that developing nations continue to churn out emissions unabated and unregulated and seeing that Australia is not confined to its own little force-field protecting our atmosphere from everyone else's...then we would also descend into a toxic atmosphere, regardless of our carbon tax, regulated industries, emission cuts, environmental regulations, or advances in renewable energy technologies.
Its quite logical that if man-made pollutants are the main reason then the biggest emitters MUST be on board and be regulated as much as we are, otherwise we will be attempting to manufacture, trade, and do commerce with countries that have far more freedoms. It will be apples and oranges. We will not be able to compete.
KnightersRevenge said:
China can spend much more than us...but they also have a population, army, manufacturing sector that dwarfs us in comparison.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
I would expect them and the other countries heading the biggest emitters list to be the ones investing the most money, considering we are a drop in the ocean in more ways than one.
KnightersRevenge said:
Not quite "free" Knighter. Wind turbines cost big money vs poor efficiency, solar panels by the millions aren't free. Conversion from geothermal and the technolgy to harness it isn't free. Granted the sun when it's shining might be free, the wind when it's blowing at the right speed might be free (too little wind=no generation, too much wind=damage to the turbines so they're disengaged)
It still costs. Either $billions to build and develop, which is a cost that's passed on to the consumer. Solar and wind turbines require either sun or wind, the sun doesn't always shine everywhere every day and the wind factor also comes into play (either too little or too much) geothermal technology still has a long way to go as well. I don't know the time frame but it will be decades and decades until we're able to utilise "nature" to be fully self sufficient, if ever.
Who pays for it all?
What about nuclear energy as an alternative, to supplement solar, wind, geothermal. Once again there seems to be differing schools of thought between proponents.
One that it reduces CO2 levels by as much as 2 billion tonnes a year, is that something to consider?
Liverpool said:
Yes they can. And they are. Your argument that is Australia is an island on the landscape of action on climate change. My post tells a different story and points out that the three biggest emitters are also three of the countries spending the most on this issue and trying to clean up their act. There is no conspiracy of inaction. Australia is not a pariah. But as a country that is amongst the first to get on board a market that is growing and will eventually be the global way emissions are regulated, we will benefit from it both economically in terms of the trade itself and through the shift to a more sustainable model for generation and industry.
willo said:
In many places it is argued that Solar is already competing with the grid. The below quote makes the point that this is because it is usually competing with the grid at a retail not a wholesale level.
Each of your examples is true but it uses the worst case scenarios of each of the technologies. If we do this with coal, gas or nuclear then they would never have got off the ground, and would likely be shut down immediately. The dangers of high winds to wind farms is massively exaggerated. The technology has moved very quickly and is now capable at generating at very low wind speeds and much safer at higher wind speeds. On solar I am in two minds. Local generation is only useful up to a certain level. We really need to start thinking about "community" solar generation especially as issues of new buildings reducing the capacity of old solar installations due to shading become more common.
On nuclear I am a solid no. It is never discussed using the complete cycle of costs. People conveniently parcel off the discussion about the half-life of the spent fuel. It is very great concern to me and don't think it worth the gamble personally. The costs involved in building new nuclear facilities, the time it takes and the problem of storage of lethal spent nuclear fuels makes it a no-brainer for me. We can have solar and wind up and operating in less time, for less money, and without the potential harm.
The first potential geothermal wells in South Australia are are in the final stages of the drilling and capping process and are showing quite good potential. I wouldn't be surprised if these could be actually generating within the next 5 years. They are small and really only for proof of concept to test the rigs and technology in the field. But so far it looks pretty good.
I personally think it is a sin that a country with our solar thermal sink capacity in unpopulated areas we don't have large scale solar thermal facilities, we should have had them decades ago.
"Predictions from the 2006 time-frame expected retail grid parity for solar in the 2016 to 2020 era,[7][8] but due to rapid downward pricing changes, more recent calculations have forced dramatic reductions in time scale, and the suggestion that solar has already reached grid parity in a wide variety of locations.[2] The European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) calculated that PV would reach parity in many of the European countries by 2020, with costs declining to about half of those of 2010.[1] However, this report was based on the prediction that prices would fall 36 to 51% between 2010 and 2020, a decrease that actually took place during the year the report was authored. The parity line was claimed to have been crossed in Australia in September 2011,[9] and module prices have continued to fall since then. By late 2011, the fully loaded cost of solar PV was projected to likely fall below $0.15/kWh for most of the OECD and reach $0.10/kWh in sunnier regions like the southern United States or Spain.[10] This is below the retail rate for power in much of the OECD already." from wiki quickest source I could find. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
willo said:
Knighters mentioned China and all the money they are spending on renewable energies but they are also in partnership with Russia to build new nuclear power plants....so its not all rainbows and lollipops just yet.
Also:
In an analysis published last month, the World Resources Institute, a sustainable development advocacy group, identified plans for as many as 1,200 new coal-fired power plants worldwide. Roughly 76-percent of that proposed coal-fired capacity was located in China and India.
And we're going to change the world by selling technology to these countries?
Its fantasy.
KnightersRevenge said:
But these countries are also users of nuclear power, are building new nuclear power plants, and have plans for new coal plants as well.
They simply need power because the size of the market there is huge compared to what we have here regardless of how the power is manufactured.
Liverpool said:
Except that they aren't doing it "regardless of how the power is manufactured" they are in fact taking careful regard and are implementing more renewable energy infrastructure than anywhere else.
KnightersRevenge said:
There are currently plans to build a solar plant and wind farm close by our city.
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/06/09/3521811.htm
http://www.agk.com.au/silverton/
the thing that pisses me off is that subsidies, feed in tariffs etc are being reduced. Is this because Energy suppliers just want to derive more profits? The old blame game between generating power companies, the "poles & wires" distributors, who pays for what, the cost of supply, or distribution, the cost of replacing ageing infrastructure etc.
Why if it's so important, with the carbon tax (rebates), the obvious net gains of solar power (less the big cost of installation) why aren't respective governments doing more. To either encourage more uptake, to reduce price hijacking and all the rest.
It seems the Feds could do more, have we a national electricity grid, who looks after the running of that? Talk about being half pregnant.
I agree with you Knighters in one respect. With the amount of sunshine hours received in inland Australia, there could have been massive investment in installing solar plant generation facilities. Even with Federal money subsiding involved, if they were people of their own convictions. Which gets back to what I was saying in other threads. Less government waste. No needless throwing of our money away on mickey mouse projects. Invest our money on infrastructure that has a lasting benefit.
